But at a moment when questions of sex and power, blame and credibility, and gender and justice are so ubiquitous and so urgent, I have mostly felt irritation that stripping down to skivvies and calling ourselves sluts is passing for keen retort.

To object to these ugly characterizations is right and righteous. But to do so while dressed in what look like sexy stewardess Halloween costumes seems less like victory than capitulation (linguistic and sartorial) to what society already expects of its young women. Scantily clad marching seems weirdly blind to the race, class and body-image issues that usually (rightly) obsess young feminists and seems inhospitable to scads of women who, for various reasons, might not feel it logical or comfortable to express their revulsion at victim-blaming by donning bustiers. So while the mission of SlutWalks is crucial, the package is confusing and leaves young feminists open to the very kinds of attacks they are battling.

The above is, from everything I can gather, not a critique of the walks, but of the way the walks have been represented, more by the media than by the organizers or the majority of attendees of any of the walks.

In fact, when she wrote, "The most sophisticated attempts elicit just as much derision and, frankly, receive a fraction of the attention," I thought she was going to address that what she was criticizing was the media representation. But then she didn't, which confounded me. It seemed like she became part of the media misrepresentation herself, and took part in solidifying that simplification and misrepresentation. I also wondered if she was asking the organizers or attendees to somehow control the media, something none of us have the capacity to do, and even when we try, our efforts are most typically in vain. We can respond to the media -- and I do think more response is something missing from this picture, a part of the movement that could stand some work -- but that's all we can really do is respond. Activists are not responsible for how the media chooses to portray them, especially when the media chooses to misrepresent. Are we even remotely surprised that a movement in which young women are making themselves visible around issues of sex, violence and appearance has gotten the kind of coverage it has? If we are, how can we possibly still be surprised by reactions that are such literal representations of exactly what the protests are about?

She calls these efforts clumsy (but also necessary: "while clumsy stabs at righting sexual-power imbalances may be frustrating, they remain necessary.") I'm not so sure that they are. Rather, I'm not so sure that they are any more clumsy than a great deal of activism tends to be and has always been. By all means, I think more advance and in-depth organizing with this could have been helpful, especially strategies around dealing with the highly predictable media response. At the same time, sometimes effective activism is about seizing a moment -- a moment like Sanguinetti's comments -- and moving as fast as you can. Taking more time to organize can be of real use, but it can also happen that in doing so, you lose essential momentum. It's a call that is easy to err with either way.

Traister also says, “I found myself again wishing that the young women doing the difficult work of reappropriation were more nuanced in how they made their grabs at authority, that they were better at anticipating and deflecting the resulting pile-on. But I also wondered if, perhaps, this worry makes me the Toronto cop who thought women should protect themselves by not dressing like sluts.” I appreciate her honesty and her introspection.

I do think there have been some possible missteps around the walks, though I don't think that's about how some attendees of the walk have chosen to dress. And like Traister posed in that last quote, if we start thinking that way, I do think we have to take a good look in the mirror, whatever we're wearing, and look for how much of the harmful and patently wrong-headed messaging about dress, "asking for it" and sexuality we've internalized.

Samhita brought the issues around the media up in the Feministing response to and roundtable of Traister's piece, and I agree with what she said there in saying that "Activism and social change are not as much about what you meant to do, but instead what you do do, and what is Slutwalk doing in the mainstream media? Are people rethinking the role victim-blaming plays in sexual assault or are people too caught up in the term “slut?” I am not really sure." Media pushbacks are important to assure your message doesn't get lost or you don't wind up letting the media rewrite your aims. This is something Courtney also brought up in her commentary at Feministing.

Maya also voiced something in that roundtable I really appreciated about the Traister piece when she said, "to some extent, it’s inevitable that a grassroots protest movement, organized entirely on the local level, and filtered through a mainstream media that latches on to the word “slut” and images of half-naked young women, will struggle with message control. (My own limited experience with protest organizing definitely reminded me why I, like Traister, embrace a medium like writing that allows for so much more precision.) I just wish Traister had acknowledged that inherent challenge more, instead of reinforcing the idea that SlutWalk is just about women “stripping down to skivvies and calling ourselves sluts” – when she clearly knows that it’s about more than that and, at most protests, the hoodies probably outnumber the skivvies."

There's the issue of if a "dress code" should have been suggested or enforced. I can see how, when we're working around the issue that "slutty" dress has zip to do with sexual assault,some being playful with that can be seen as sending a mixed message, or as reinforcing the message being protested. I do personally think that someone presenting like this creates a more powerful statement about dress and victim-blaming than someone showing up without a sign, who isn't a survivor, wearing the kind of clothing most often considered (in the west, anyway, and even though it's often an error) to signal indiscriminate sexual availability.

Yet, at the same time, suggesting or enforcing a dress code for the walks stands counter to the core aims, like making clear there is NO way of dressing or not dressing which will "get you raped" or protect you from rape, but also no way of dressing or not dressing in which someone cannot or will not perceive you as sexually available. As well, it's clear that some attendees who came to the walks in whatever their "slutwear" was experienced something powerful in doing so. We always have to remember that when a movement is made up of people it is also attempting to serve, that what experience the activists have is no less important that what impact it has on those who are not directly participating.

Again, people are sexually assaulted wearing everything, anything, and nothing a person can possibly wear, and there is no one way of dressing which makes rape a victim's fault or responsibility because there is NO way of dressing which makes rape a victim's fault or responsibility. If any way of dressing really, truly protected us from violence, don't you think we'd all have tried dressing that way already? We only need one victim's story about how the way they were dressed didn't make any difference for them. We have millions of these stories: they are all of our stories.

As a feminist and activist who works primarily with sexuality but also with sexual violence, I also know how tremendously challenging it can be to try and address both of these things at once, and the ways that they intersect, especially in a world and a culture which often does not recognize that -- and sometimes even purposefully blurs and obscures -- consensual sex and sexual violence may not be things we can completely separate from one another, but they are also incredibly different, usually for the perpetrators of this violence, and most certainly for victims. We are going to stumble, because it is rocky terrain. The only way to avoid that completely is to not take steps at all, which is just not an option if we want any kind of change. Could folks organizing have asked for more help with that tricky balance? Probably. Would the walks and SlutWalk as a movement have benefitted from that? I have no idea.

As another maybe-critique, I've heard people voice a wish that there was, for all of the walks and their various self-produced web media as a whole, some shared, stated core values and aims. I, too, can see how that could be valuable. At the same time, I wonder if the lack of that was what allowed this to become such an international movement, with communities, cities and cultures feeling a flexibility to adapt the walks to suit who they were and what they wanted and needed to address. Unilateral core aims, especially if done without an exceptionally diverse group of people taking part, could have created very real barriers to that, barriers which have long been problematic within feminism and other social justice movements.

I keep saying possible missteps, because the fact that myself, or Traister or any number of people think errors have been or are being made, or that all of this could be done better or worse doesn't mean we're right. We could be. We could also be wrong. It could be that despite it seeming like this thing or this other way of doing or saying that would have been the better move, that doing a given thing differently would have less impact.

I've been part of activist efforts and movements myself that fizzled, crashed or burned, even one or two that blew up in my face; actions or movements which were planned to death, actions or movements which were very spontaneous. I experience activism as being an awful lot like working in chemistry with elements and formulas which are experimental, untested or not entirely understood. You can try mixing things via various formulas we already have, and sometimes that works. Sometimes it doesn't: it makes a huge mess of things or does nothing at all. Sometimes you try new formulas, with the same array of results. When we're working in and with activism, we are usually working with unstable, unpredictable elements.

Growing up in and around activism, being quite literally born out of it, watching it and taking part in it in various forms for four decades now, one thing I know is that effective activism tends to require a sort of perfect storm, an often, if not always, difficult to predict mix of timing and numbers and ideas and actions and people. Even the literal climate -- not just the social climate -- can matter sometimes, as trite as that can seem. My father engaged in one activist movement, the civil rights movement, that eventually seems to have had its perfect storm. Another he engaged in, dedicating years to, sacrificing liberties for, was the movement against the Vietnam War, which pretty much flopped per its ultimate goal. From all anyone can tell, the Vietnam war did not come to an end because of antiwar activist efforts. Even though both of these issues were vital and core human rights issues that highlighted incredible abuses of human rights, even though both involved the dedicated efforts of millions, they didn't have the same impacts, and I don't think that was just about the differences between the two movements and the two issues. I think a great deal of the why of those differences was outside the control of activists entirely.

Traister finished her piece with something I thought was intensely valuable:

Social progress is imperfect, full of half-truths and sloppy misrepresentations. After all, we celebrate the victories of a civil rights movement that was shot through with misogyny, and of a women’s movement riddled with racial, class and sexual resentments. Fighting for power is a complicated, messy process, especially for complicated, messy human beings. Often, the best we can hope for is that our efforts draw a spotlight. Which, I guess, is enough to make SlutWalkers of us all.

Something else I believe to be true about activism, and have found to be so during my life experiences with and around it, and my historical understanding of it more broadly, is that it is often very difficult to evaluate until we have considerable distance -- emotional distance, and the distance of time having passed -- away from it. Without that kind of space so we are better able to see the bigger picture of what progress (or not) or change (or not) and what kind of change it sparked, created or completed, making an earnestly accurate evaluation of an action or movement is precarious.

Frankly, I think those trying to evaluate the results of the walks are trying to do so much, much too soon and with far too small a scope.

Going back to the American Civil Rights Movement, some people will list that movement as being less than a decade long. We can also know that at any point during that movement, a given action was seen or felt as the central action, the apex at the time. But depending on your scope, what you know about, and what you're recognizing, the span of that movement could be more like 20 years, 50 years, a hundred years or longer. I tend to see it myself as spanning over 200 years. Before the March on Washington and the Montgomery Bus Boycott, for instance, there was the school desegregation movement, fifty years before that, the formation of the NAACP, before that the civil rights act of 1875, slave rebellions before that and on and on and on. That movement also was sparked and moved by more people than Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Rosa Parks wasn't even the first to engage in her most historical action. In fact, she wasn't even the first to do it on that very bus line. There are so many activists who took part in actions that created the civil rights movement as a whole, people like Claudette Colvin, and like Octavius Catto, Gabriel Prosser, Bayard Rustin or Clara Luper, names few people know. There were people whose names we don't know or recognize and may never know. And for all we know, something one of those people did may have had more to do with the actions we recognize and the activists we know about. Trying to track a movement back isn't as easy or simple as it often seems, just like trying to evaluate what alchemy creates progress and change is not, and we are always going to see things differently depending on where we're at on the eventual (and often neverending) timeline.

This is some of what I mean when I talk about perfect activism storms and the scope of activism. When we're talking about activism around sexual violence towards women, already we have a timeline and a larger scope; we already have actions and activists and movements that reach back more then two centuries. Where do the Slutwalks fit on that timeline? What is their import in comparison to other activism around this issue? I don't think we can know that yet, nor do I think it's fair to ask that yet.

But I think that what we can know now, since people are asking, is that so far SlutWalk has been of value and has shown the potential to spark more than one kind of needed, important change.

Just a few relatively young feminists managed to spark numbers in-person, international activists movements largely made up of and led by young women all over the world. There have been largely attended walks, but there have also been so very many discussions, discussions and more discussions which have not been insular echo chambers, and where silences are being broken.

We have been able to hear, read and and be part of a real diversity of views, feelings and ideas. with a great deal of variance, many of which have involved a great deal of care, thought and positive intention. These discussions have generally been far more complex than simple yays or nays. These discussions are important, and often about more than either just sexual violence or just the right for women to be able to dress as they choose, and present or express their sexuality, when they do, as they choose without being held responsible for the violent actions of others when they do. From what I can gather, many of them have bounced off the issue of Slutwalks to get at some of the core issues that can create and have created divisions and exclusions in feminism and social justice that get in the way of women's rights and all human rights.

There are still discussions to be had here, issues that are part of the big picture to be addressed, like, for instance, that while blaming a victim -- or blaming someone who isn't even a victim yet -- based on her style of dress is largely, if not exclusively about women, male victims and survivors suffer a similar kind of victim-blaming around they way they present -- or are accused of not presenting -- their masculinity. There's the fact of the matter that, as with so many things, the world at large is often far more concerned, when it is at all, with the victimization of upper-middle-class white girls than with everyone (read: most people in the world) outside those groups. There's also the issue of how groups being presented as without their own sexuality, namely, those with disabilities, are often at the highest risk of, and have the highest rates of, sexual victimization, but also have the least freedom to engage in healthy, consensual and wanted sexual relationships and interactions. As someone who works primarily in human sexuality and hears about people's personal sex lives every day, there is also the incredibly sticky wicket of addressing how many people have sexual violence, exploitation, coercion and lack of real consent -- and not just women -- as part of their ongoing sexual relationships without the realization or recognition it is abuse and assault: who earnestly do not know and can often not even imagine, what healthy sexual relationships and interactions are like.

I think the walks and all of the discussion around them have given us a really great jolt in the arm to start having those conversations more and having them more widely.

The experiences attendees seem to be having vary, and it's clear the walks have offered a range of experiences. Survivors of assault have deeply connected with other survivors, or found a place where they felt able -- and for some of them, probably for the first time -- to feel safe in identifying as a survivor. Others have experienced a powerful and increased awareness about those of us who have survived sexual violence. I expect that someone in a hoodie and jeans walking next to someone in a bustier might have been able to see some common ground they did not before. For others still, the walks have provided an avenue to experience a lightening of the load so many of us have walked around with living in cultures which enable or excuse rape and which make many women feel afraid of expressing their own sexuality or enjoying their bodies. They have allowed women to deeply connect with other women, something which remains a huge challenge for many. I expect that for many participating in the walks, they brought them out to engage in in-person social justice activism for the very first time (something older feminists have been accusing younger feminists of having no interest in doing for a while now, mind you).

We know that how women dress or don't dress neither causes rape, nor can it protect against rape. We know that telling women to avoid dressing a certain way is not about protecting women, it's about controlling women or scaring women (and also about suggesting men need women to try to police or control their sexualities), something anyone who works in or around sexual violence or had education -- or should, like a police officer -- knows. We know that calling women names like "sluts" or otherwise arbitrarily applying perceptions of someone's sexual life or history to suggest someone's value as a person may be lesser is also about social control and can enable sexual violence. We know victims remain held responsible for their assaults far more often than perpetrators of those assaults. We know that calling these things out and stating and restating the truths they obscure is essential to reducing, and ideally, eradicating rape, and also crucial for an environment in which survivors of assault can heal and where people, whether they have been victimized by sexual violence or not, can truly see sexual violence for what it is and learn real ways to be safer.

All of these are aims of the walks; all of these aims are of great value and import, potential avenues to positive social change that could benefit everyone. And I do think that, so far, the walks have provided new inroads and outlets to cultivating these changes.

When thinking about how -- and if -- I was going to get involved with our local walk, I was reminded of Thomas Paine's words about revolutions, to "Lead, follow or get out of the way."

I knew I wasn't going to try to lead: this wasn't mine to lead, so far as I could tell. There were already leaders, and it's also seemed to me that much of Slutwalk as a whole is being led by younger people than myself, something I always want to support and never want to get in the way of. I wasn't going to follow. As I mentioned, there were a couple relatively minor issues with our local walk that kept me away, but also a far more core matter of my feeling that the most powerful way I could take part involved doing something I did not feel strong enough to do.

Which left me with the third option. To get out of the way. Which is what I chose to do and felt best about doing. But after I did that, I realized I wanted a bit of an addendum to that quote, because we can get out of the way without also being disengaged. We can be supportive from the sidelines, which is what I hope I have managed to do with these three pieces this week, and which is what I intend to do -- and hope others who don't feel they can or should earnestly lead or follow will do more of -- as this movement continues.

Comments

Are you saying that disabled people are more likely to commit sexual violence, or did you mean that disabled people are more likely to be victims of sexual violence, because I certainly haven't heard that disabled people are more likely to commit sexual violence (I am painfully aware that they are more likely to be victims of it), and I found your wording confusing.

I appreciate your thoughtful writing on the Slutwalks. While I think there's a lot of well-made points here, I'm disappointed that as far as I can tell, you've chosen not to write about the criticisms of the Slutwalks from a racial perspective. I feel, as you do, somewhat conflicted about the Slutwalks. I realise you've linked to various commentaries about the walks, and that you're trying to write broadly supportively of them while acknowledging that there are potential missteps, as you put it. However, I can't help but feel that by not specifically addressing the critiques based on race and class, you (and other commentators) risk appearing to think those are relatively minor criticisms, which to many, they are not. In short, I feel that some writings I've seen about the walks (including this one) emphasise (rightly, in my opinion) the importance of activism, while (wrongly, in my opinion) appearing to minimise certain critiques. This could appear to be coming from a place of privilege; it's easy for a white person to say 'Well, sure there were some mistakes made in terms of reaching out to communities of people of colour, but let's focus on what a great piece of activism the whole thing was', which effectively silences these critiques.

I want to reiterate that I appreciate that you're trying to respond to the many critical pieces that have been written about the Slutwalks and the activists involved with them, and to reaccentuate the positives, but I still feel uncomfortable about what hasn't been said here.

The reason that I stuck with linking to those critiques rather than going into them myself is that I am not a person of color, and felt that the people of color who made them were the best and most appropriate people TO make those critiques. I think their/your words should have more weight than mine, and that what they/you have to say about it is really what needs to be paid attention to. I don't ever want to speak for people of color as a white person without being asked to do that, or wind up speaking over people of color about their/your own issues.

I've also made a point of tweeting/facebooking links to some of those critiques as they came up over the last few months. Again, doing that that way is what struck me as the best way I could be supportive without being presumptive.

I'm not sure what to say on this about class, myself. I grew up low-income and working class, I'm still working class and low-income, and I'm not seeing a class issue around this any more than I see and have experienced with all kinds of protests. But if you have some things to say about that, I'd be really interested to hear them. It very well could be that I'm missing something.

My deepest apologies if anything I said feels at all silencing, or my choices in approaching those issues inadvertently silenced anyone. That was and is absolutely not my intent. In fact, it's what I was trying to avoid.

I understand what you're saying, that you don't want to appear to be speaking for groups of which you are not a member (I hesitated to write anything about this myself, as I am white and I don't want to be speaking for/over anyone else). It's just that having seen various critiques of this from the point of view of people of colour, there seemed to be a lot of pain there which needs to not be forgotten. I think maybe what I would have done is specifically refer to these critiques in the piece (with links; I see that you have linked several, but giving them more prominence would be good IMO), without necessarily responding to them in depth (as that would probably fall into the trap of speaking for others). I think something I've seen people saying quite a lot is that the walks represented mostly privileged women; specifically white, middle-class women (and, I think I've read, disproportionately cis women) and that the way the walks were conceived of and framed was very much coming from this place of privilege and was not representative of all women, as it was supposed to be.
It seemed to me that in a piece like this, where various critiques were mentioned, it would be appropriate to mention these and link them to give them greater prominence. The criticisms you have addressed here are more of the 'oh, silly scantily-clad girls, what are they actually achieving?' variety, and I think it does people a disservice not to point out clearly that there are other criticisms coming from a place of pain and exclusion.

I should say that I haven't been on any of the Slutwalks and I'm aware that at least one was organised by a person of colour, so I am not speaking from a personal point of view as I don't feel qualified to make those judgements, I just feel that when people are saying that their communities are being ignored or not represented, it is important to give this weight, especially as this is something that unfortunately happens a lot in activism (where a type of activism or a specific act is assumed by more privileged groups to be universal and inclusive when it is not).

I'm not sure I've expressed this very well, but I hope it makes some sense :).

I think I get where you're coming from, and appreciate you engaging like this.

This series of three posts was mostly about the places I, personally, was feeling conflict around the walks themselves and the representations of the walks. So, what's in these three pieces -- perhaps most obviously in the first of them -- is mostly about the reporting which was bothering me most, and that was coming primarily from my perspective as a sexual assault and abuse survivor who was criticized/blamed for her clothing. I think it's safe to say that it was secondarily coming from the place of concern and frustration about how some of the talk/reporting around this struck me as about control or salaciousness disguised as concern.

By all means, though I may not have expressed this effectively, based on your reactions, I am also concerned, in this activism and feminism, as I always am, with exclusions that create divisions and/or which either maintain or even create silences when the goal is to give voice. But with a three-piece set more about my own stuff, and a lot of text as it was, and with issues around race being those I truly felt really weren't my place to give voice to, I certainly did shortcut that. I suppose that was a choice on my part, though it was one made more out of choosing to lead with my own feelings about all of this (which were pretty weighty for me as it was), both because I was strongly feeling them and because of a desire to speak from a first-person place, which I can't do about issues with it for women of color, just like you can't. And of course, the fact that my first-person feelings about the things I talked about didn't specifically involve race may (and it's a bit of a bigger may given some personal specifics I didn't talk about) well have to do with my having white privilege.

At the same time, I think -- and hope! -- as the walks continue to happen internationally, including in areas where few white women at all are organizing or participating, we might see some of this work itself out more and more, and give us more to really talk about on this issue, whatever our color or ethnicity. For instance, I'm not sure if we can yet know if this is about the walks as a whole or if it's about the walks in North America, and a much larger continuing issue and problem with North American feminist movements specifically that not just about the walks, which is what I personally suspect it primarily is.

And by all means, if anyone wants to use Scarleteen/our blog as a platform as a person of color to talk more about these issues, I'd be delighted to provide space and extra visibility to those conversations.

I hope we can all keep talking and listening and move all of this forward!

"We know that how women dress or don't dress neither causes rape, nor can it protect against rape. We know that telling women to avoid dressing a certain way is not about protecting women, it's about controlling women or scaring women (and also about suggesting men need women to try to police or control their sexualities), something anyone who works in or around sexual violence or had education -- or should, like a police officer -- knows."

This makes a lot of sense!

I do have a question regarding this line of thinking though. I used to dress more provocatively and was told that the way I dressed will attract attention from guys and/or a specific kind of guy that I wouldn't necessarily want that attention from. While this doesn't say 'dressing slutty results in rape' it's kind of saying dressing slutty results in more attention (wanted and/or unwanted). Like wearing a short dress out to the club could result in you getting 'hit on' more than if you wore a conservative outfit. Is this line of thinking wrong? Are you saying that no matter how one dressed it would result in the same amount of attention...? And or kind of attention...?

I always have a hard time when anything like this is even frames as "dressing slutty," because I honestly don't know what that means. I know that everyone, and some communities or cultures, have their ideas about what it means to dress 'slutty," or to dress in ways a person might to try and specifically attract sexual attention, but what those ways are are so varied, SO varied, it all leaves me honestly feeling pretty confused, you know?

By all means, if a person dresses in a way that someone else thinks is them trying to get their sexual attention, they might get at that attention.

They also might not.

And on top of that, people may give sexual attention no matter how someone is dressed. For example, I recall a time I once got catcalled all freaking morning while working in the garden of a place I lived in Seattle by some construction workers next door. I was wearing Birkenstocks, long overalls, and a grubby t-shirt, no makeup and had dirt all over my face. Like I said, what it means to "dress sexual" or "dress slutty" aren't things that all mean the same things to all people (if they mean something to anyone at all), but I'm pretty sure my gardening duds probably don't classify as either by most people's definitions. :)

That's not just me, either. Nuns in habit get harassed. Muslim or Frum women, for example, wearing skirts to their ankles, covering their heads, etc. get harassed.

And when it comes to sexual violence, specifically, we know from data that most women who are sexually assaulted have been wearing their regular walking-around clothes -- like jeans and t-shirts -- or their pajamas.

So, yes, I'd say the thinking that "If I/someone wears X, they will get sexual attention, but if they wear Y, they won't" isn't sound thinking.

the abouts:

Information on this site is provided for educational purposes. It is not meant to and cannot substitute for advice or care provided by an in-person medical professional. The information contained herein is not meant to be used to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease, or for prescribing any medication. You should always consult your own healthcare provider if you have a health problem or medical condition.